Sistemas Aéreos Pilotados Remotamente – RPAS Proyecto

3/28/2014
Sistemas Aéreos Pilotados
Remotamente – RPAS
Proyecto PRONTAS:
Desarrollo de “Know How” en la UPM
Miguel A. González Hernández
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
miguel.gonzalez.hernandez@upm.es
Tel.: +34 914 524 900 Ext 26011
EXPTE: IPT - 2011 - 0850 - 370000
1
3/28/2014
Technological parameters and requirements
Airfoil aerodynamic efficiency at design point
120
Efficiency of the propulsive system
0,76
Solar cells efficiency
0,23
Energy density of the batteries [Wh/kg]
255
Structural weight of the wing [kg/m2]
2,66
Payload [kg]
6,00
Flight autonomy
Indefinitely
Basic geometric data
Wing span (without wingtips) [m]
16,00
Mean aerodynamic chord of the wing [m]
0,54
Aspect ratio
29,63
Wing area [m2]
8,64
2
3/28/2014
Flight conditions
Cruise speed [m/s]
22,00
Flight altitude [m]
8.000
Ambient temperature [K]
237,15
Air density [kg/m3]
0,525
Reynolds number
4,08E+05
Weight calculations
Total structural mass [kg]
40,03
Battery mass [kg]
29,09
Total mass of the aircraft, including payload [kg]
75,12
Aerodynamic calculations
Lift coefficient
0,702
Induced drag coefficient
0,0062
Total drag coefficient
0,021
Estimated efficiency of the aircraft
33,34
Total power needed for flight [W]
Wing loading [kg/m2]
671,1
9,09
Energy calculations
Time of flight sustained only on batteries [h/day]
15
Energy collected by solar panels [Wh/day]
17,093
Energy consumption for flight [Wh/day]
16,947
Energy reserve [Wh/day]
146
3
3/28/2014
Surveillance
-
Border control
Wildfire detection
Traffic control
Ship hijack protection in conflict zones
Plague control
Large crowd of people control
Scientific research
-
Atmosphere data collection
Climate study
Investigation of environmental disasters onsets
Monitoring and detection of fish schools, whales, etc.
Rescue and aid
-
Detection of people lost in the sea, mountains, etc.
Traffic disaster localisation
CBRN and mine detection
Industrial plants failure detection
Cartography service - Thermal, agriculture maps
UPM contributions
1. System Engineering
2.
3.
4.
Wing profile design and improvement
Propulsion wind tunnel tests
3D configuration analysis
• Aircraft configuration
• Configuration control
• Excel spread sheet definition for continuous
checking of requirements and performances
4
3/28/2014
UPM contributions
1. System Engineering
Why Excel:
PRONTAS Excel sheet
- Data always visible
- Data linked and up-to-date
- Graphics linked and up-to date
- Accessible by people with little tech knowledge
UPM contributions
1.
System Engineering
2. Wing profile design and improvement
3.
4.
Propulsion wind tunnel tests
3D configuration analysis
• Aerodynamic efficient wing profile is fundamental
for a high efficient solar airplane.
• For solar cell application, upper surface curvature
must be low and constant on more than 90% of
the profile.
• Good performances at high cl are strongly
required, to be able to flight at low speed
5
3/28/2014
UPM contributions
2. Wing profile design and improvement
Solar Aircraft Airfoil Argentavis
•
•
•
•
•
•
Based on S904 airfoil
Modified upper surface curvature (constant radius)
Modified leading and trailing edge, aft cambered
A higher maximum lift coefficient
Docile stall characteristics
Low profile drag coefficient for lift coefficients from
0,4 to 1,0
UPM contributions
2. Wing profile design and improvement
Current
Airfoil
Coordinates
Improvements
2D Model
Changes
Methodology
New Airfoil
Identification of
critical areas
Analysis
New Airfoil
Coordinates
6
3/28/2014
Wind Tunnel at Instituto Tecnológico y de Energías Renovables
ITER Wind Tunnel Facility
Overall dimensions:
Length:
23 m
Width:
12 m
Wind tunnel characteristics
Maximum air speed in the test section [m/s]
Maximum volumetric flow rate [m3/s]
Maximum power (9 electric motor) [kW]
Test Section dimensions
Width [m]
2,0
Height [m]
2,0
Length [m]
3,0
57
216
198
Wind Tunnel at Instituto Tecnológico y de Energías Renovables
8
3
2
3
6
7
5
4
2
3
2
1
3
Introduction of turbulence reduction devices
in the setting chamber reduces the maximum
speed to 49 m/s, but improves the flow quality
(0,5% turbulence level)
New modification to be implemented, corner
vanes and fan blades redesign will allow to
reach 60 m/s for high quality flow
7
3/28/2014
ITER Wind Tunnel External Balance
Theoretical layout of the balance.
Made in house, according to
Patent P201130844
Dated May 24th 2011
UPM contributions
2. Wing profile design and improvement
Upper Surface boundary layer analysis
0.05
0.03
d*, θ
Cf
0.04
Cf
0.025
0.03
θ
0.02
d*
0.02
Flow
Visualization
0.015
0.01
0.01
0
0.005
-0.01
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Upper
Surface
6°
Re=800.000
8
3/28/2014
UPM contributions
2. Wing profile design and improvement
Lower Surface boundary layer analysis
0.02
0.003
Cf
d*, θ
0.015
0.0025
Cf
0.002
θ
0.01
0.0015
d*
Flow
Visualization
0.005
0.001
0
0.0005
-0.005
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Lower
Surface
6°
Re=800.000
UPM contributions
2. Wing profile design and improvement
Lower Surface Modification
• Investigate the separation bubble on lower surface
• Camber and thickness variation
9
3/28/2014
UPM contributions
2. Wing profile design and improvement
Alternatives
Serrations:
• Improve the separation and stalling characteristics
• Reducing pressure drag
• Streamwise vortices immediately downstream of the
serrated devices.
UPM contributions
2. Wing profile design and improvement
Gurney 0,8%c flow visualization
10
3/28/2014
UPM contributions
2. Wing profile design and improvement
Trailing Edge Wedge (T.E.W) Theoretical Results
• Efficiency increases for most configurations
• Shortest Trailing edge wedge has the best performance
UPM contributions
2. Wing profile design and improvement
Trailing Edge Wedge (T.E.W)
• Tested 2 different length wedges with the same height
• Shortest T.E.W. had the best performance at low cl
• The combination of the semi curved wedge and short T.E.W did not yield better results
than the serrated gurney
11
3/28/2014
UPM contributions
1.
2.
System Engineering
Wing profile design and improvement
3. Propulsion wind tunnel tests
4.
3D configuration analysis
UPM contributions
3. Propulsion wind tunnel tests
Ct versus J graph for
uninstalled propeller
configuration
Cp versus J graph for
uninstalled propeller
configuration
Nacelle-propeller test set-up
ITER wind tunnel
12
3/28/2014
UPM contributions
3. Propulsion wind tunnel tests
Uninstalled propeller efficiency
UPM contributions
3. Propulsion wind tunnel tests
Wing-propeller
interference tests
Ct versus J graph wingpropeller configuration at α=0º
Cq versus J graph for wingpropeller configuration at α=0º
Wing-propeller test set-up
ITER wind tunnel
Enhanced thrust performance for
wing-propeller configuration due to
wing presence acting as a stator and
retrieving energy lost due to wake
swirl.
13
3/28/2014
UPM contributions
3. Propulsion wind tunnel tests
Cq versus J graph for wing-propeller configuration at α=0º
Jϵ(0.7,1.0) interest area
Rolling moment due to altered local lift distribution over the wing by the propeller wake
is stronger than rolling moment resulting from the rotational movement of the
propeller. This effect is stronger for propeller position 190mm of the trailing wing
(x/D=0.29) than for 240mm (x/D=0.37).
UPM contributions
1.
2.
3.
System Engineering
Wing profile design and improvement
Propulsion wind tunnel tests
4. 3D configuration analysis
• Performances calculation
• Stability analysis
• Flight simulation
• Flight tests data recording and analysis simulation
14
3/28/2014
UPM contributions
4. 3D configuration analysis
Initial geometry
parameters
VLM + Boundary Layer ANALYSIS
Force and moment coefficients
and their derivatives
ALGEBRAIC TRANSFORMATION
Dimensionless force
and moments derivatives
Refined geometry
parameters
EIGENVALUE PROBLEM
Flight Simulation
Longitudinal stability
STABLE
NOT STABLE
Lateral stability
STABLE
NOT STABLE
FINISHED DESIGN
UPM contributions
4. 3D configuration analysis
Parameterization
• Input
geometry:
All possible
cases for
predefined
bindings
• Input flight
conditions
Viscous Analysis
Analysis of all
airfoils for all
possible Re and
a predefined
range of angles
of attack
VLM + Boundary Layer ANALYSIS
Inviscid Analysis
VLM analysis
for all input
geometries
varying flight
conditions, i.e.:
speed, alpha or
beta vectors
Final Analysis
• Data
interpretation
VLM data
completion
using viscous
analysis data
• Results
formatting
15
3/28/2014
UPM contributions
4. 3D configuration analysis
Tools Verification
Theoretical analysis
Vs.
Wind tunnel test
Ira H. Abbott & A. E. von Doenhoff. (1959).
Theory of Wing Sections, page 29
Wing geometry and flow properties:
- profile: NACA 64-210
- AR: 9
- taper ratio: 0,4
- washout angle: 2º
- M: 0.17
- Average Re = 4.4e6
Error in
CL calculation (%):
min.: 0.07
max.: 7.78
mean: 2.04
Experimental results:
Error in
CD calculation (%):
min.: 3.05
max.: 12.55
mean: 8.99
UPM contributions
4. 3D configuration analysis
Parametric Configuration Analysis
The tool lets analyse diverse flight
conditions of various
configurations consecutively in an
straight-forward and
computationally efficient way
16
3/28/2014
UPM contributions
4. 3D configuration analysis
Flight Simulation
Flight Dynamics Model
Data recording is possible, as real flight test instruments do
Flight derivatives can be calculated using these data
UPM contributions
4. 3D configuration analysis
Flight Simulation
17
3/28/2014
CONCLUSIONS
• UPM has demonstrated leadership capabilities in the
development of PRONTAS Project
• UPM has developed advanced tools to obtain optimum
aircraft aerodynamic configurations, including 3D effects
• Results can also be incorporated to MOD tools because tools
provide aerodynamic coefficients and derivatives, as well as
load distribution
• UPM is able to split and integrate its know-how for developing
new RPAS
UPM capabilities for RPAS
• System engineering
• Aerodynamic design and optimization
• Wind tunnel tests preparation, performance and
analysis
• Flight dynamic analysis, including flight simulation
and flight tests support
18
3/28/2014
MANY THANKS FOR
YOUR ATTENTION
Miguel A. González Hernández
ETSIAE
Plaza del Cardenal Cisneros 3
28040 Madrid - SPAIN
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
miguel.gonzalez.hernandez@upm.es
Tel.: +34 914 524 900 Ext 26011
www.aero-maaj.etsiae.upm.es
19